Re: [gentoo-dev] Split KDE packages?

[John Nilsson]

This is somewhat off topic.

When/If this subpackage feature is designed/implemented would this be
usable for packages like busybox?

Busybox is a package that puts small version of the most common utils
,such as sh, wget, cat and similar, in one binary. You pick features in
a header file before compiling, and then it is called by "busybox
<util>" or a symlink <util> --> busybox. Now it would be great to have
this like bb-ash, bb-netcat and similar subpackages so you have a
consistent way of configuring "features" of "multiprogrampackages".
You might think that busybox has to be recompuled completley anyway so
why bother? For the sake of consistency in package management I say.

The gvim and vim situation also springs to mind.
gkrellm and its plugins... plugins in general could/shuld be
subpackages.

And E17 is an excellent candidate =)

What do you think?

/John



On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 15:15, Dan Armak wrote:

>
> Now the best solution IMHO would be to implement 'subpackages' as i described
> before. An ebuild could then divide the files it installs into a number of
> 'subpackages'. If the user requested merging certain subpackages, the ebuild
> would (should) be smart enough to take only the minimal action required to
> compile those subpackages. And if the user requested everything (as in an
> ordinary emerge command), the ebuild would be smart enough not to repeat
> actions (ie not to run configure more than once).
>
> This obviously needs portage-side support and so must come after the present
> (pre-1.4-release) feature freeze ends. I'll try to add such support then,
> meanwhile I'm dealing with bugs only...
>


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list